Prayagraj: In a significant judgment that touches upon modern social dynamics and the legal complexities of consensual relationships, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction and life imprisonment of a man accused of kidnapping and raping a woman.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I, observed that there is an increasing tendency among the youth to enter into live-in relationships under the influence of "Western ideas." The Court noted that when these relationships eventually break down, criminal complaints (FIRs) are often filed, leading to convictions based on laws that were drafted long before the concept of live-in relationships became a social reality.

The case originated in 2021 in District Maharajganj. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Chandresh, had "enticed away" the informant’s daughter on February 22, 2021, with the promise of marriage. According to the mother’s initial complaint, the daughter returned home roughly six months later, in August 2021, claiming that Chandresh had kept her in Bangalore, established a physical relationship with her, but eventually turned her out of the house without marrying her.

In March 2024, a Special POCSO Court in Maharajganj convicted Chandresh under several stringent sections:

Section 363 IPC: Kidnapping
Section 366 IPC: Abduction for marriage
Section 323 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 6 of the POCSO Act: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault
Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act: Offences against members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes.

The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment. Chandresh subsequently challenged this verdict in the High Court.

The core of the High Court’s decision rested on whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. If she was a major (above 18 years of age), the charges under the POCSO Act and the kidnapping charges would effectively fail if the relationship was consensual.

The High Court found that the trial court had overlooked critical medical evidence. While the victim’s mother claimed her daughter was around 17 or 18 years old, the Ossification Test (a medical procedure to determine age through bone growth) conducted on August 23, 2021, proved she was approximately 20 years old.

Furthermore, the Bench criticized the reliance on school records provided by the prosecution. The Headmaster (PW-4) admitted that the date of birth recorded in the school register (July 7, 2003) was based solely on the guardian’s verbal statement without any supporting documentary proof like a birth certificate.

The Court also highlighted a discrepancy in the informant's (the mother) statements. In the original FIR, she stated her daughter was 18-and-a-half years old. However, during the trial, she claimed the girl was 17. The Bench remarked that this shift in statement appeared to be based on "legal advice" to ensure the case fell under the POCSO Act.

The Court meticulously examined the behavior of the victim during the six months she spent with the appellant.

The victim (PW-2) admitted in court that she left her house of her own free will and went to the appellant’s house. From there, they traveled by public transport—a government bus and a train—to Gorakhpur and then to Bangalore.

"At no point of time she raised any alarm or cried for help," the Bench noted.

The Court observed that:

She lived with the appellant in a populated residential area in Bangalore for six months.
She never attempted to call her mother or family during this period.
She only contacted her family after the appellant dropped her back at a crossing near her hometown.
The relationship was essentially a "live-in" arrangement where both parties eventually parted ways.

Before concluding, Justice Siddharth, writing the judgment, made a pointed observation regarding the current legal landscape:

"This case is an example of the increasing tendency of the youth living together without solemnization of marriage under the influence of western ideas and the concept of live-in. After such relationships fail, F.I.R. is lodged and the laws being in favour of women, the boys/men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was nowhere in existence."

The Court emphasized that since the victim was a major and had entered into a consenting physical relationship for months, the charges of rape (Section 376 IPC) and POCSO were "unjustified" and "unwarranted."

The Court also set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act. It clarified that Section 3(2)(V) of the Act is not an independent provision; it only applies if the accused is being punished for an IPC offense that carries a sentence of 10 years or more. Since the main IPC convictions were being set aside, the SC/ST charge could not stand.

Similarly, the conviction for "voluntarily causing hurt" (Section 323 IPC) was quashed because the victim had alleged that she was pushed by the appellant's family members, not by the appellant himself.

Finding the trial court's judgment to be legally unsustainable, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the immediate release of Chandresh.

Case Details:

Case Title: Chandresh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3529 of 2024
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Hon'ble Siddharth, J. and Hon'ble Prashant Mishra-I, J.
Date of Order: January 8, 2026

This article is for informational purposes and provides a summary of the judicial proceedings.